Showing posts with label Civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil liberties. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

"Today is a good day"--some further comments

It's more than appropriate that, just as I started this post, John Adams' musical tribute to the victims of September 11, "On the Transmigration of Souls," began playing in my iTunes.

The tone of my previous post notwithstanding, I have a mix of feelings about the killing of bin Laden. I'm not alone in this; Aaron over at Zunguzungu sums them up well.

I would much prefer that Obama continue to find more peaceful means to demonstrate his presidential bona fides, and that his political and policy opponents see those means as valid. I'm not at all happy that this event has justified or vindicated, in the minds of some, the use of torture to obtain intelligence. It in fact appears to be the case that torture didn't produce the information that set this operation into motion (more here--and, as final proof, here's Donald Rumsfeld saying torture didn't yield this information--on Newsmax, no less). Still--just as Aaron and others have noted--do we really want to codify actions of this sort as justice? As exempla of American values?

I admit to being an optimist, though, especially where this president is concerned. Maybe this event's extreme nature will give Obama some future leverage in debates concerning how to prosecute terrorism cases: He can point to this event in his arguments with the chest-thumpers that he's no wimp but that, by the same token, we neither can nor should go tearing around the world shooting bad guys or, for that matter, jail all of them indefinitely without trials (preferably civilian ones). He's not afraid of going after these people, he can now say; why are all of you so willing to act from a position adopted out of fear? That's right: call them cowards. Point to the facts that our civilian trials, for all their coddling of the accused via acknowledging their rights, have thus far been far more successful in convicting and imprisoning terrorists than the allegedly less-coddling military courts have, and that we already have convicted terrorists in prisons in this country, not one of whom has even tried to escape. Etc., etc.

Maybe, in other words, as many have suggested, Obama can finally begin to get us out of this defensive, cowering crouch we've been in for the past 10 years.

I for one would really like to stretch my legs a bit. Maybe you don't know it yet--it's hard to remember, after so long, what that would feel like--but you probably would, too.

Read More...

Friday, April 10, 2009

I (still) like our new President. But.

I do not like this. Or, for that matter, the previous affirmations of the State Secrets privilege for a program whose existence everyone is aware of and, thus, what's to endanger? Especially when what's at issue is whether sworn officers of the courts--specifically, judges--can look at evidence to determine whether the plaintiff has a case.

Given the undeniable fact that the previous administration's Department of Justice left the present administration's DOJ with several big fat legal Gordian Knots to unpick (that, I might add, should never have been tied to begin with), I still hold out hopes that Obama's folks are erring on the side of caution until they can figure out the scale of the messes and then proceed as they would prefer--something like what we've seen with the handling of the financial crisis. It's still very early in this administration, after all. But as more than a few people are pointing out, it was precisely the Bush administration's indiscriminate use of the State Secrets privilege that candidate Obama used as part of his critique of that administration's intrusions on civil liberties. Absent some sort of thorough--and constitutionally-satisfactory--rationale for what's going on from the Department of Justice, I confess to some queasiness about these decisions.

I signed up for a whole lot of stuff when I signed up with Obama, some of it with a fair amount of assurance, some on faith. One of those things I signed up for was that he, with his background in constitutional law, would restore a respect for civil liberties that had had been sorely lacking in the Bush administration. Thursday's actions don't square with what I signed up for.

UPDATE: Here is a Department of Justice statement, issued this morning, regarding yesterday's case.

Read More...